100 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 January 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Thats down to how PGI want to implement it.

That helps alot.

[Dlardrageth]

Nik has a apoint though, the actual speed scaling done formthe conversion from TT to computer game is a very fickle and core game feature. Why? Well, make the game "too slow", and lighter, fast MEchs will be easy prey for anything with more weapons. Make it "too fast" and it will lead to massive frustration as even minimal lag will make it nigh-impossible to hit anything. Both likely leading to player/customer dissatisfaction.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Thanks Diardrageth, you put it much better than I could have.

[Yeach]

Dlardrageth, on 10 January 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Nik has a apoint though, the actual speed scaling done formthe conversion from TT to computer game is a very fickle and core game feature. Why? Well, make the game "too slow", and lighter, fast MEchs will be easy prey for anything with more weapons. Make it "too fast" and it will lead to massive frustration as even minimal lag will make it nigh-impossible to hit anything. Both likely leading to player/customer dissatisfaction.

What point? This is a suggestion discussion thread.
Put out some numbers for what is "too slow" and what is "too fast". (10 secs as per TT table or less?)

Why have this forum all all if its all down to "how PGI wants to implement it"?

Back to my original question.

Does knock occur from the 20 point damage done in a 10 second span (like TT maybe)
or is the knock done on an instant 20 point damage?

if 4 medium lasers are fired in a span of 10 seconds will it cause knock or do they have to be fired at the same time?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Because it does come down to how PGI implement it. As a TT player I would go for the TT, in 10 seconds. They may choose to use a much smaller time slice, ie "instantaneously" or they could accept cumulative damage ie ripple fire, or multiple mechs firing at slightly different times.
My thoughts were that this was something that should be included and I put the question to see what others thought.

[Dlardrageth]

Yeach, on 10 January 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

What point? This is a suggestion discussion thread.
Put out some numbers for what is "too slow" and what is "too fast". (10 secs as per TT table or less?)

Okay, let's spell it out then. *sigh* 'He has an "argumentative point". Better now?

Quote

Why have this forum all all if its all down to "how PGI wants to implement it"?

Well, unless you have some very special insight into PGI's development process that makes you perfectly sure MWO will be a round-based game, a whole lot will depend on the speed scaling TT/computer game. Sort of obvious.

You cannot just port a 10-second round 1:1 over into a real-time computer game and expect it to be balanced right away. Thus the base speed scaling will set the foundation for anything that is eventually time-critical. Like e.g. the amount of time it will take for incoming fire to count as being within the "window of opportunity" to "count" for a knockdown. Once the speed scaling has been decided upon by PGI, then aforementioned window can be looked at with regards to game balance.

Without any indication about speed scaling as of now, we can throw random numbers out which have no relevance at all. But hey, sure, go ahead, I'll join in for the lulZ...

Quote

[...]
Does knock occur from the 20 point damage done in a 10 second span (like TT maybe)
or is the knock done on an instant 20 point damage?

if 4 medium lasers are fired in a span of 10 seconds will it cause knock or do they have to be fired at the same time?

I think the hits sustained by the weapons you mentioned have to incur on the target in a matter of 1.875 seconds or less. I like that number somehow so it totally should be the upper limit. Doesn't really matter if the target Mech moves the equivalent of 2 cm or 200 m during that period, does it?

*/irony*

[UncleKulikov]

This should be a factor, and pilot skill/level/experience should help mitigate it.

Lasers shouldn't contribute to knockdown, neither should flamethrowers or machineguns, or inferno SRMs.

[MaddMaxx]

UncleKulikov, on 10 January 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

This should be a factor, and pilot skill/level/experience should help mitigate it.

Lasers shouldn't contribute to knockdown, neither should flamethrowers or machineguns, or inferno SRMs.

Hang on. So now we have to define what "Applied Damage" actually is?

Doesn't an MG do damage? It is a Ballistic weapon right? An SRM had to fly to the target an hit it right? So LRM's don't count either?

Additive damage is either a factor or it is not.

[SneeakyAsian]

Should be that the amount of damage needed to knock down should be different for each mech. That and it should be that you can modify the armor to change the amount of damage needed

[Frantic Pryde]

Glanced through this thread a bit. I like the general of a piloting factor... I thinks its one of the biggest holes in all the other mech games and not hard to implement...

...I get hit dead on by sme serious firepower and as my mech rocks back, I push the joystick foward to balance myself, if i misjudge the angle or react to slowy or with to much/to little pitch on the joystick then down i go!

[Lycan]

Voted "other".

I do believe that damage over 20 should require some kind of pilotting skill check to avoid being knocked arse over tea-kettle. I also believe that the MORE damage over 20 you take should increase the difficulty of staying on your feet. (which, would make quad mechs viable as they provide a much stabler platform).

Now, not exactly sure how they can accomplish this in game but it would be nice to see it.

[Dlardrageth]

Lycan, on 11 January 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

[...]
Now, not exactly sure how they can accomplish this in game but it would be nice to see it.

Impact vectors could be a possible solution. Depends obviously on trhe exact dmage modeling again and yadda, yadda, but...

...if 3 shots from weapon A, B and C impact from roughly correspondent angles on part(s)/hitbox(es) of the Mech close together, and if A+B+C have higher dmagae value than treshold D, a knockdown can/will occur. The "can/will" part is due to another factor being what the target Mech was actually doing. A good pilot might in theory counter the impact force somewhat on a Mech standing. while I'd say on a Mech going full speed and being hit in the way mentioned above... prepare for a dive!

This is of course just a simplified model, can be made quite more complicated easily.

[Lycan]

Dlardrageth, on 11 January 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Impact vectors could be a possible solution. Depends obviously on trhe exact dmage modeling again and yadda, yadda, but...

...if 3 shots from weapon A, B and C impact from roughly correspondent angles on part(s)/hitbox(es) of the Mech close together, and if A+B+C have higher dmagae value than treshold D, a knockdown can/will occur. The "can/will" part is due to another factor being what the target Mech was actually doing. A good pilot might in theory counter the impact force somewhat on a Mech standing. while I'd say on a Mech going full speed and being hit in the way mentioned above... prepare for a dive!

This is of course just a simplified model, can be made quite more complicated easily.

Thanks for the explaination and I like it.

About the moving full speed thing though. I can see where that could hinder or help your ability to be knocked flat. If you're moving full out and then get hit in the back (well, you're probably dead anyway ), I can see the chances of being knocked forward being much greater. Where as, same situation, you got hit from the front (depending on location) your momentum should acutally help you stay upright.

I think.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It very much depends on the vector and location. A shot on the side of the ankle of any mech moving at speed is likely to be an instant face slide.( Think "tap tackle".) The same thing at low speed will only be a stumble, not a fall. Depends on how accurate a physics model they can impliment. Mind you 20+ points damage on most mechs 30 tons and under is no leg.

[Lycan]

::nods::

Of course.

[Yeach]

From the novels, the knockdown is not from the impact of weapons but from the damage caused by the loss of armor.

[Dlardrageth]

Yeach, on 11 January 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

From the novels, the knockdown is not from the impact of weapons but from the damage caused by the loss of armor.

Problem with that one is that both the damage modeling and the vector calculations for such a model would likely be way more complex. You'd have to add at least one extra layer of programming in. Step-by-step you'd have to calculate damage done, exact effect on armor for each location and by weapon/impact type (molten off armor != blasted-off armor etc.), then the check how much of that lies inside the pre-defined "window of opportunity" to count for a knockdown. Then you'd have to start on "drag vectors" from different points of the Mech based on the armor loss to get the direction the Mech is knocked down to. The whole movement factor as another set on influential variables... ugh...

I don't envy anyone who would actually have to try to code that one...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 11 January 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[Yeach]

Lycan, on 11 January 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Voted "other".

I do believe that damage over 20 should require some kind of pilotting skill check to avoid being knocked arse over tea-kettle. I also believe that the MORE damage over 20 you take should increase the difficulty of staying on your feet. (which, would make quad mechs viable as they provide a much stabler platform).

Now, not exactly sure how they can accomplish this in game but it would be nice to see it.

I was thinking of something like a mini-game to conteract the knock down.
L-R-L-R-U-D-U-D-A-A-B-B-select-start
or something similar.

[Yeach]

Dlardrageth, on 11 January 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Problem with that one is that both the damage modeling and the vector calculations for such a model would likely be way more complex. You'd have to add at least one extra layer of programming in. Step-by-step you'd have to calculate damage done, exact effect on armor for each location and by weapon/impact type (molten off armor != blasted-off armor etc.), then the check how much of that lies inside the pre-defined "window of opportunity" to count for a knockdown. Then you'd have to start on "drag vectors" from different points of the Mech based on the armor loss to get the direction the Mech is knocked down to. The whole movement factor as another set on influential variables... ugh...

I don't envy anyone who would actually have to try to code that one...

It doesnt have to be that hard.
Lose 20 points of armor
front armor - you pitch back
rear armor - pitch forward
left leg- pitch to left
right leg - pitch to right
right arm / right torso rotate right
left arm / left torso - rotate left

or a combination of motions on mutliple hits.

So maybe you have to get at least 20 damage in the same direction.

[Dlardrageth]

That is you assuming we get the exact same hitboxes and damage modeling like in the TT, Yeach. Which I, for one, neither expect nor hope for. Makes hitboxes way too big and thus the whole coring/legging/critting issue a major PITA. Not relevant to knockdown itself, but opening a much bigger can of worms thus.

And as you yourself wrote "in the same direction", you will have to work with vectors anyway, as you might have the target taking fire from 2+ sources at once. The "at once" meaning withing a certain amount of time depending on the speed scaling/conversion PGI does. Also the movement of the target on impact/armor loss should have some major influence really. It is totally unrealistic the same hit/massive armor loss having the exact same effect on a stationary Mech, one running from you in a straight line and one flanking at a 90° angle. That is too oversimplified.

Unfortunately by the looks of it, any modeling/game mechanics that is too simple or straightforward, if you want, is too easy to exploit here. And if you do want to avoid the rule of the RNG, you are likely in for complex modeling. But as I don't work for PGI, I of course have no say in this and can only hope for the best. And, like I stated, reserve my respect and somewhat compassion for the guys there, who have to code the damage modeling/knockdown routines.